QUICK NEWS, 12-15: CLEAN ENERGY STANDARD RUMBLINGS; SOLAR POWER PLANTS TO DO OR DIE; SUNRISE FOR SUNRISE WIRES; EPA REGS TO END 50,000 MW OF COAL

CLEAN ENERGY STANDARD RUMBLINGS
Bingaman cracks open door to backing ‘clean’ energy standard
Ben Geman, December 13, 2010 (The Hill)

"A leading Democrat on energy policy signaled… he’s open to a “clean” energy standard [CES] for utilities — a GOP-backed proposal that’s favorable to new nuclear plants and low-emissions coal projects.

"Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has long championed a renewable electricity standard [RES] that would require utilities to supply escalating amounts of power from sources like wind and solar…Bingaman said…he’d look at a wider standard that includes non-renewable forms of energy — but only if it doesn’t crowd out the renewables…"

click to enlarge

"Bingaman has long opposed proposals for a 'clean' standard, which were offered several years ago by former Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) — who was the energy panel’s leading Republican — and more recently Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

"Proposals by Bingaman and other lawmakers to create a renewable power standard have stalled on Capitol Hill amid significant GOP resistance, although a few Republicans such as Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) like the idea…Prospects won't get any better in the new Congress, when Republicans will control the House and have greater numbers in the Democratic Senate."

click to enlarge

"The idea of a 'clean' standard that would credit power from nuclear plants, and coal projects that sequester carbon emissions (a technology not yet commercialized), got a shot in the arm last week…[when] Energy Secretary Steven Chu suggested talks with Congress on the idea now that wider emissions-capping legislation has collapsed on Capitol Hill, and Graham said he plans to revive his proposal."

[Senator Bingaman (D-NM):] “If you can design a so-called clean energy standard that still provided incentives to pursue renewable electricity ... then it is certainly worth looking at…The versions I have seen in the past have appeared to me to essentially wipe out any real incentive for things like solar and wind, other of the developing or maturing technologies…I am open to looking at other options, other ways to do it.”


SOLAR POWER PLANTS TO DO OR DIE
Will 2011 close the chapter on large-scale CSP? Andy Skumanich, CEO and founder of Solar Vision consulting, explains why CSP is unlikely to emerge victorious from the battle of the solar technologies.
Rikki Stancich, 3 December 2010 (CSP Today)

[Andy Skumanich, CEO/founder, Solar Vision consultants:] "I think it is do or die time, a turning point; now is the time that CSP needs to demonstrate its viability in the US…[Investors and financiers] want proof, there is a fear factor, and they do not want to be funding huge projects where they don’t have a strong confidence…Some of them are just outright off CSP – and CPV…PV is going so fast that it really is…taking over…"

[Andy Skumanich, CEO/founder, Solar Vision consultants:] "I can’t over-emphasize how 2011 is the year of execution…[It] is the time to really demonstrate the commercial viability of CSP…or the capital markets will start to walk away…I would say there is a window of perhaps a year, where the projects that are in the pipeline are showing real progress, real functionality, meeting the cost targets…Brightsource and Solar Reserve are doing a good job of this…"

And for the investor? (click to enlarge)

[Andy Skumanich, CEO/founder, Solar Vision consultants:] "…[CSP] is behind the curve with PV…[It must] demonstrate its value, and that value is storage and hybridization. The problem is that PV and battery combinations are really nipping on CSP’s heels, because there are now battery solutions that are on the order of roughly $3/watt - NGK in Japan may have a battery solution that is $3/watt…$6/watt, which places you at the low-cost side of CSP…[T]here are now two paths to the solar energy storage solution…The market is brutal. It will take which ever option is cheaper, and which ever technology has the right functionality. CSP needs higher DNI, higher light requirements. It has higher operations and maintenance costs. Likely, it would likely be the PV battery arrangement that wins out."

[Andy Skumanich, CEO/founder, Solar Vision consultants:] "…[There may be] cost efficiency of achieving economies of scale with CSP, but when you start getting to scale, you can also run into big problems. Labor considerations, permitting and multiple jurisdictions can become more complicated…[A] modular micro grid approach to CSP - like Sopogy’s – is a great one…There is a hidden market of micro grid installations. They are nominally off grid, but they are really more micro or island grid arrangements because there is not the infrastructure in places like India that can support a full grid connection…The concept is similar to a cell phone tower model, instead of putting up landlines for the network, you can put up cell towers, and you are able to achieve the phone coverage. In this case you have ruralised electrification that is done with 1-2MW CSP configurations…[but] you are talking about villages and the government can’t just throw in lots of micro grids."

A middle ground for micro-grids? (click to enlarge)

[Andy Skumanich, CEO/founder, Solar Vision consultants:] "We have done some analysis looking at micro grid opportunities around the world. India, parts of Africa, former Soviet Republic countries, and a large part of South America all have a real opportunity for this micro-grid market. Our estimates are roughly in the order of a GW/year – the PV market this year is in the order of 15 GW, so with micro CSP grids so you are talking almost a 10%…[M]icro CSP developers could really tap into this market. In these areas you can’t put in large scale CSP, for which you need a high level of O&M and where there are high initial costs, so [large-scale CSP developers] would miss that market altogether…[But] the PV-battery solution is the simplest, so in this respect CSP is still not a front runner for this important developing market."

[Andy Skumanich, CEO/founder, Solar Vision consultants:] "…[We will begin to see] product differentiation…CSP becomes one of a type of products for niche segments of the market… [like] PV panels….optimized for Germany…[and those] optimized for Morrocco…for California, and so on…You would have macro product differentiation, where CSP starts getting relegated to Spain or places that have infrastructure, capital and a market that will accept it, but it won’t have a broad implementation. So it won’t go away, but it may start getting marginalized."


SUNRISE FOR SUNRISE WIRES
Schwarzenegger praises Sunrise Powerlink transmission line groundbreaking
Tiffany Hsu, December 9, 2010 (LA Times)

"The Sunrise Powerlink transmission line finally broke ground…as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and more than 100 protesters looked on…Wind turbines spun lazily in the background as Schwarzenegger told the crowd that the project did his ego proud.

"By helping to link distant wind, solar and geothermal plants to Southern California communities, Sunrise Powerlink was helping California ‘beat the Chinese’ in the alternative energy game, he said…[The project] has spent more than five years struggling through permitting and legal challenges."

The new transamission will deliver sunpower from California's deserts to the growing San Diego metropolis. (click to enlarge)

"…[I]n a nod to the gathered protesters, he acknowledged that energy conservation was also important, as are efforts to promote distributed solar projects that would blanket warehouse rooftops with panels…Existing power lines, however, are [antiquated and inadequate]…"

[Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger:] “I have fought and fought and fought for this…You could have all the renewable energy in the world. But if you don’t have the transmission lines, you have nothing...You have to think about the economic growth, the jobs, the impact [Sunrise Powerlink] will have on the dependence on foreign oil…”


EPA REGS TO END 50,000 MW OF COAL
Brattle Study Estimates EPA Regulations May Result in Over 50,000 MW of Coal Plant Retirements and Up to $180 Billion in Compliance Costs
December 8, 2010 (The Brattle Group)

"A new study by The Brattle Group finds that emerging U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on air quality and water for coal-fired power plants could result in over 50,000 MW of coal plant retirements and require an investment of up to $180 billion for remaining plants to comply with the likely mandates.

"…[Potential Coal Plant Retirements Under Emerging Environmental Regulations], by Brattle economists Metin Celebi and Frank Graves, analyzes the economics of retirement decisions for each coal plant operating in the United States under the proposed and emerging EPA air quality and water regulations, taking into account the predicted profitability and cost of replacement power for both regulated and unregulated plants…"

click to enlarge

"The regulations are expected to force coal plants to decide between retiring versus installing expensive control equipment to reduce emissions of SO2, NOx, particulates, and hazardous air pollutants such as mercury, as well as cooling towers to reduce the use of cooling water.

"Celebi and Graves estimate that 40,000 to 55,000 MW of coal capacity (depending on the cost of retrofits) would retire if scrubbers and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) equipment were to be mandated by 2015 for all coal units. Another 11,000 to 12,000 MW could retire if cooling towers are also mandated. This would bring the total retirements to between 50,000 to 67,000 MW, or roughly 20 percent of installed coal plant capacity…"

click to enlarge

"Most of the retirements would be merchant plants (47,000 to 56,000 MW, or up to three-quarters of the entire merchant coal fleet), with significantly fewer retirements of regulated coal-fired plants. The retirements would be especially large in the Midwest ISO, ERCOT, and PJM areas, representing up to 72 percent of all coal plants and up to 15 percent of total installed generating capacity.

"For the units that would not retire, complying with EPA’s potential mandates to install scrubbers, SCRs, and cooling towers would require investments in the range of $100 to $180 billion. The combination of retirements and increased operating costs would reduce coal demand by about 15 percent by 2020. Gas demand could increase…approximately 10 percent…Assuming that all of the lost generation from coal plants were to be replaced by gas-fired combined-cycle generating plants, CO2 emissions could fall by…approximately 7 percent of all CO2 emissions from the electric power sector…The generation unit-specific detail of this study also supports the analysis of stranded cost recovery for at-risk plants, in addition to the assessment of location-specific reliability and transmission impacts."